Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

refinement plan amendment and zone change must be considered in the conte×t of the node, staff notes that the subject site is not located within the East Laurel Hill Development Node. Although both parties agree that the subject property is not suited to residential uses, the~ discussions focused on two points of concern for the neighborhood group. First, the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) opinion that the Laurel Hill Plan requires no net increase in commercially designated land in the East Laurel Hill area, and second that any new approved commercially designated land maintain a 90 foot buffer between commercial and residential uses along the western border, abutting Laurel Hill Drive. The materials submitted describe the results of the parties' discussion and attempt to reach a commonly supported solution. Although the parties were able to consider the other's concerns, and staffmet with each to clarify the process and options, there was no resolution between the opposing interests. LHVC representatives state that to comply with the Laurel Hill Plan there must be no net increase in commercially designated land, and therefore, suggest that the applicant negotiate a "swap" of designation with some other land in the nearby area designated commercial. The applicant describes in their rebuttal that this is not practical because of the low value of the subject parcel due to the constraints on the site. Staff also note that such a swap could not be considered in the context of this application. Regarding the request for a 90 foot buffer on the west boundary of the site, the applicant has stated a willingness to meet or exceed the code required landscape buffering of the site, but has stated that a 90 foot buffer would eliminate approximately half of the useable area of the site. Staff Evaluation To assist the Planning Commission in making a recommendation on these applications, staff presents the following Refinement Plan Amendment approval criteria (in bold) with findings related to each based on the evidence in the record. These findings supplement those in the September 14, 2004, staff report. Staffhave also provided responses to the questions asked by the Planning Commission in the public hearing. EC 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Criteria of Approval (1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a) Statewide planning goals. Goal 12- Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Questions were raised in testimony and by Planning Commissioners in regard to function of Interstate 5 and streets near the subject site. Commissioner Rusch requested "more detailed responses to the traffic concerns expressed by ODOT." Oregon Department of Transportation staff submitted testimony on September 14, 2004, (see Exhibit D of Attachment A) requesting clarification on the City's position regarding the need for mitigation of traffic impacts on the ODOT facility (Glenwood interchange). Public Works staff analysis shows that the change in IV-4 2